After Roe v. Wade, What Next?

Without context, the fact that we have a “Texas Bounty Hunter Law” and that we have to think of how laws will be effected by it sounds like the most anarchy-dystopian thing ever

The idea that birth control could be taken away is absolutely insane. I take it because I have extreme endometriosis that leaves me basically bedridden if I don't take it. If this happens, I'm telling my doctor to immediately perform a hysterectomy before they ban those too. I've spoken to other women with endo who also have said the same. This situation is off the wall bonkers.

As a Registered Nurse in the ICU I'll say this: the presence of a heartbeat doesn't mean anything if the patient is brain dead and all the breathing of the patient is done by a ventilator.

That reading at the end, about other rights being in jeopardy, made me think: "Wow, it's almost as if linking acquired fundamental rights to simple judicial cases that can be rolled back by a sufficiently dedicated court is a BAD idea."

I’m probably projecting… but I love Devin’s ability to objectively lay out the facts and implications of this decision while still conveying disappointment in that decision without resorting to hyperbole.

There's a good point you've touched on here. If a fetus is a legal "person" then the census would be required to start counting them, since they have a duty to count "all persons within the United States".

I heard of a story in Texas, where a lone woman was pulled over for driving in the carpool lane. The officer pulled her over, and when he pointed out that she was driving in the carpool lane without another passenger in the car, she point out that she was pregnant and according to the law, a fetus in her belly was a person, therefore: it was legal for her to use the carpool lane. Make the law work for you folks.

Wait so if a fetus has "full personhood" wouldn't it be illegal to jail pregnant women? You would be illegally imprisoning that innocent "person"

"The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not 'deeply rooted in history'." If historical precedent is the only thing we're gonna look at to determine what is ethical, then I got some bad news for you about our most 'deeply rooted history.'

Got a “what if” question: If a law/laws came to pass that grants personhood to a fertilized egg/zygote/embryo/fetus, could that open up potential laws allowing mothers to open paternity suits compelling fathers to be tested and then be legally obligated to be financially responsible for prenatal care and preparations for the birth?

It's hilarious that people are even pretending to give credence to the lie about "this decision doesn't affect other rights" when they openly stated that they plan to go after same-sex marriage and birth control next. They told you the plan and people are still pretending that it's unclear what they're going to do.

Imagine if all these anti abortion activists spent all this time and energy- supposedly "compassion for fetuses and potential babies" trying to help ACTUAL children who were already born?

When the woman at the beginning said she thought a having a tragedy occur does not mean you should have another tragedy occur, I immediately assumed she was pro-abortion. Because why would you force a 12 year old girl who got abused by her father to go through the trauma of pregnancy and childbirth? That's just awful.

I had a pharmacist deny my script before on religious grounds because of a missed miscarriage. It was as infuriating as it was humiliating. I still can't go past that pharmacy without feeling like utter trash. No one should ever have to go through that, ever, and no pharmacist should have the right to be high and mighty on their morality because theu don't know someone's situation. Their job is to make sure our medications don't contradict each other. Now we have doctors terrified in states, telling those of us capable of carrying children that we need to get off certain meds because it can cause fetal abnormalities or miscarriages. It's a terrifying situation, honestly.

A few years ago I had a miscarriage that, unfortunately, resulted in what is technically considered abortion. I very much wanted this baby, planned or not. The state I live in now has recently made that exact procedure illegal. If my miscarriage had happened today, I would have basically been left to die. Thankfully our bordering states has kept abortions legal so if worst came to worst, I could have rushed over there and they ideally would have saved my life.

One of the best arguments I've heard in support of abortion access is from a doctor speaking from a medical ethics standpoint. She said if you block abortion you're granting a right to the fetus that no other person has, the right to use another person's body against their will to stay alive. If we set this precedent does this mean states will have the ability to pass laws to force blood donation or bone marrow donation? Can somebody who is sick gain the right to force me, or someone else, to surrender our bodies against our will so it can be used to keep another person alive? I very much support blood donation and such, but it should stay based on the condition of consent, never forced against someone's will.

With the "bounty" laws... would that theoretically allow someone to sue Delta Airlines for selling someone a ticket to travel for abortion?

"The concept of unborn personhood is not particularly developed." Great line.

I'm an ER nurse. The idea that "pills must be taken in the presence of a licensed physician" would make my job absolutely impossible. There are simply too many patients, too few doctors, and not enough hours in a day! When I rule the world, I will attach all laws concerning abortions to medications for erectile dysfunction. I'd LOVE to see the law say that "all erectile dysfunction medications must be taken in the presence of a licensed physician", and of course, I'd fully support pharmacists in having a religious or moral objection to prescribing those medications. After all, if pregnancy is "God's will", then SURELY impotence is as well! 🤣 For the actual record, I have no problem with taking those medications, because it's none of my business, just as abortion is also none of my business. If we don't have privacy in our own lives, we have no rights at all. We need to make Orwell fiction again!

What I really do not get is how "deeply routed in history" is even an argument, regardless of which side you are on. I do not think that matters at all when you try to decide which rights a person should have. I mean, we all know civil right were better in the past, right? And as Devin said, this reasoning could be applied to so many other recently granted rights or used to prevent new ones. Why is this used and taken seriously for any legal reasoning?